Original Inventors of Hydrolyzed Collagen File Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court

PAUMA VALLEY, Calif. - March 20, 2024 - PRLog -- 'Pro Per' Petitioners Ahmad Alkayali and Terri Stiles filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court to review their case against Judge David Chaffee, lawyers Steven Smith and John Clifford, and the individuals Darren Rude, Sarah Quadri, and Fatma Boukhari, case #30-2008-00113872. Alkayali and Stiles' constitutional rights were ignored in the case when Inventor Alkayali and his wife Stiles defended their right to the business that they built, their intellectual property, and their personal belongings, all of which were stripped as a result of the initial, fraudulent case. Additional restrictions were placed on Ahmad Alkayali that prevent his natural right to earn a living and provide for his family.

Ahmad Alkayali is the original inventor of hydrolyzed collagen and its use as a food supplement; he first brought collagen to the American public's consciousness in 1983. Alkayali and Stiles established and grew three successful businesses that packaged and sold collagen as nutritional supplements: Smarter Beauty Products, Molecule 2000, and NeoCell. In 2009, Judge Chafee ignored a jury's decision that confirmed Alkayali and Stiles as 72% owners of NeoCell, and wrongfully awarded the company to Akram Quadri, Sarah Quadri, and Fatma Boukhari. Attorneys Clifford and Smith, who represented the Quadris, conspired with Judge Chaffee to execute the fraud, and eliminated critical proof of Alkayali and Stiles' ownership of NeoCell which Judge Chaffee inexplicably withheld from the record. An injunction remains in effect to this day prohibiting Mr. Alkayali from contacting nutritional supplement retailers, an after-effect that continues to injure Alkayali and Stiles daily.

Alkayali and Stiles' initial complaint against Judge Chaffee was filed with the Commission on Judicial Performance on April 1, 2022 to examine his judicial misconduct. The same complaint was filed with the State Bar of California against Steve Smith and John Clifford. Despite evidence of collusion between Judge Chaffee and Attorneys Clifford and Smith, evidence that Judge Chaffee used his own personal and prejudicial preference for one side of the trial over another, despite hard evidence presented demonstrating irrefutable proof of Alkayali and Stiles' corporate ownership, and despite a jury's majority decision, the case was dismissed by two lower courts.

In the appeal, the Ninth Circuit completely disregarded the jury's verdict in the Healthwise action in which petitioners' 72% ownership of NeoCell was confirmed. In a lawsuit in California's Riverside County Superior Court, the company's officers were accused of conspiring to dissolve Alkayali's majority shares in the manufacturing arm of the Irvine-based collagen supplement company, Healthwise. The jury awarded Alkayali $4.26 million in damages and punitive damages relating to claims for conversion and breach of fiduciary duty, among others. The California Court of Appeal unanimously upheld this verdict and affirmed that the actions of NeoCell and his former partners were unjust and malicious. The three key points the Court of Appeals made in the Healthwise Action were: (1) Healthwise was a wholly owned subsidiary of NeoCell, which the plaintiffs admitted; (2) Alkayali was a 72 % shareholder of Healthwise, and therefore, also a 72 % owner of NeoCell; and (3) the former business partners were found liable for malicious, willful, and fraudulent conduct.

The Ninth Circuit offered no explanation why it chose to disregard the most recent California Court of Appeal case affirming the jury's decision of the Riverside Superior Court that Petitioners' former business partners were liable for malicious and willful fraud in stealing Healthwise (the manufacturing arm of Neo cell situated at the same physical location as NeoCell) from Ahmad and Terri Alkayali, who were also determined to be 72% majority shareholders of Neocell. The petitioners posit that the flawed NeoCell Action was effectively reversed in the Healthwise Action.

The Ninth Circuit provided no reasoned analysis why it chose to rely on the antiquated facts and conclusions of law of the NeoCell Action as persuasive authority, particularly to the exclusion of the decision in the Healthwise Action in which Appellants were recognized as 72% majority shareholders of the company. The claim that the extrinsic fraud exception to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine should apply to permit Petitioners to prosecute their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is a bogus claim because the jury verdict in the Healthwise Action shows the illegal and fraudulent conduct of the Respondents in obtaining the adverse judgment against Petitioners in the NeoCell Action.

Alkayali and Stiles respectfully ask the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision, and consider two key questions: whether a court may selectively apply prior doctrine and exclude from consideration a jury verdict that found wrongful conduct by the other parties, and whether the permanent injunction against Mr. Alkayali that prohibits him from forever engaging in commerce in his chosen occupation is in fact unconstitutional and a continuing injury.

The petition to the U.S. Supreme Court asks the respected court to review the case and send swift justice to proud American citizens Alkayali and Stiles.

Readers interested in the pursuit of justice for all American citizens should watch for the upcoming book titled Court Extortion: Under the Color of Law due to be released in 2024.